1. Details of the instant disposition

Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the non-party 1's property shall be jointly inherited as the wife of the plaintiff ○○○ (the deceased's wife), door ○○○, door ○○, and door ○○ (protruding female), as stated in the separate sheet No. 1. 2. The plaintiff filed a report on inherited property pursuant to Article 20 of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) on Sep. 29, 1990. The defendant added and corrected the portion omitted from the field investigation into the plaintiffs' inherited property, and determined the inheritance tax and tax amount on the plaintiffs as stated in the separate sheet No. 47. 2. 7. , as stated in the separate sheet No. 94. 7. , as stated in the separate sheet No.

A. As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the applicable provisions of law, the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case of this case of this case of illegality as follows, in turn

B. Judgment on the assertion on the value of inherited property

First, the plaintiffs asserted that the value of the property held by the non-party council (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party council") is illegal because the non-party council is the ownership of the non-party ○○○ Management Council (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party council")'s property held in title by the non-party 1, 198 m2, 1105 m2, 1105 m2, 63.77 m2 (including 10.9/4,302.3 m2 of the same m2, 4,302 m2, from among the 4,302 m2, the non-party 4,302 m2, the non-party 3's m21 m21 to 9, and m2, the non-party 2's m21 m21 to m3's m28, 198.

According to the above facts, the officetel of this case is deemed to be owned by the non-party council, so it is illegal that the defendant evaluated it as 19,073,446 won and included in the value of the inherited property of this case.

C. Determination as to the assertion on the amount of additional dues under Article 7-2 of the Act

Secondly, the Plaintiff asserts that the use of the deceased should be excluded from the above additional amount among the additional amount pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Act, which is the premise of the instant disposition, as follows.

(i)related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 7-2 (1) of the Act provides that "where an ancestor disposes of inherited property within one year before the commencement date of inheritance, the amount shall be calculated by calculating 50 million won or more by kind of property, and where the aggregate of such amount is at least 50 million won, and its use is objectively unclear, and Paragraph (2) provides that "property" shall refer to real estate, movable property, securities, intangible property rights (including fishing rights, mining rights, rights incidental to permission for quarrying, and other rights equivalent thereto), bonds, and other property, respectively, and Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "where the ancestor disposes of inherited property within one year before the commencement date of inheritance, referring to the case prescribed in Article 7-2 (1) of the Act; 1. Where it is evident that the other party to the transaction (hereinafter referred to as the "party to the transaction") who has paid money, etc. which he/she received by the ancestor has not been aware of the fact of receiving money, etc. or has not received money, etc. from the other party to the transaction within the scope of inheritance Act.

(2) Judgment on the assertion regarding the purpose of the sale price of real estate

The plaintiffs claim that the non-party deceased used KRW 1,061,556,283 of sales price of 2673 ○○○-dong, Seoul, 2673 large 2,717 square meters, and 2678 large 426 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") in attached Table 4-2 of Article 7-2 of the Act. Thus, the plaintiffs also live in the following order.

(A) First, Nonparty 2 claimed that the sum of KRW 50 million was deposited in ○○○ Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Nonparty 2) 50 million, and KRW 420 million was deposited in ○○○○○○○○○ Fund Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Nonparty 2). Thus, Nonparty 1 and 3-6-1 and 8-4-1 and 8-2-2 of ○○○○○○○’s evidence No. 1733, No. 17-1 and 26-1 of ○○○○○○○○○○ 6,000,000 won, and the sum of KRW 50,000,000 was deposited in ○○○ 6,000,000,000,000 won. Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3-1 and Nonparty 6-2’s remaining 7,000,000 won out of the above 60,000 won, respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the sum of KRW 916,406,562 used by the deceased to deposit to the non-party ○○○ and △△, such as the above recognition, is objectively clear its use. Thus, it is illegal that the defendant included it in the additional amount of Article 7-2 of the Act.

(B) Secondly, the non-party deceased claimed that he paid 3,00 million won out of the sale price of the land of this case to the non-party 1 on June 5, 1989 as the purchase remaining price of the land from the above non-party. Accordingly, according to the statement of No. 11-1, the non-party deceased paid 20 million won out of the sale price of the land of this case to the non-party 20 million won on May 10 of the same year after he purchased 67,240m2 from the above non-party on the same day on May 10 of the same year, the non-party 1 paid 0 million won out of the purchase price of the land of this case to the non-party 1,000 won on the same day. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the non-party 1 paid 3,000 million won out of the sale price of the land of this case to the non-party 1 on June 5, 1989.

(C) Third, on May 23, 1989, the non-party deceased claimed that he paid 60 million won out of the sale price of the land of this case to the non-party ○○ for the repayment of the loan borrowed from the above non-party. Thus, it is difficult to believe that the statement of No. 9-1 and the testimony of the non-party ○○ by the witness Kim Jong-○, consistent with the above alleged facts, are in accord with the above alleged facts, and it is insufficient to recognize this only with the statement of No. 25-1 through No. 7, and there is no other evidence to prove that the non-party deceased paid part of the sale price of this case to the non-party ○ on the same day for the repayment of the loan borrowed amount.

(D) Finally, the non-party deceased argued that the non-party deceased's remaining amount of KRW 52,149,721 as claimed in paragraphs (a) through (c) above was used to make the purchase and sale of the land of this case and the transfer of ownership based on the donation to its purchaser and pay the gift tax. However, it is not sufficient to accept it by the plaintiffs' prior certificate. Rather, in full view of the entries in subparagraphs 11-4 through 33 of No. 11-3 and the purport of the pleading in the testimony of Lee ○○○ witness and the testimony of this case, the sales contract for the land of this case was made through the non-party's personal seal without introduction, and the fact that all of the buyers have borne the gift tax. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the assertion on the use of deposit withdrawal amount

In full view of the evidence and the purport of the oral argument of the deceased 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who traded the above 400,000 won of the deceased 1 and 190.30,000 won of the non-party 2, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were 70,000 won of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 90,000 won of the non-party 2,000 won of the non-party 2,000 won of the non-party 9,000 won of the non-party 2,000 won of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4,000 won of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The non-party 3 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 70,000 won of the non-party 1 and the non-party 38.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above withdrawal was also treated as the revenue of the non-party company as the transactional account of the non-party company. Thus, it is illegal for the defendant to regard it as the deposit withdrawal of the non-party deceased and include it in the additional amount of Article 7-2 of the Act.

(B)Second, in full view of the statement and the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 4 (7 pages thereof), the defendant included 309,937,701 won of the non-party deceased's withdrawal of the term deposit at the Bank of Korea on March 15, 1990 in the deposit withdrawal amount. However, the amount of 300 million won out of the term deposit withdrawal amount is deposited by offsetting the company's loans to the non-party company's above bank operated by the non-party deceased on the same day, and the non-party deceased withdrawn only 9,937,701 won, and there is no counter-proof. According to the above facts, it is clear that 30 million won out of the amount of the term deposit withdrawal amount is included in the deposit withdrawal amount in this case. Thus, it is unlawful that the defendant included it in the deposit withdrawal amount.

(C) Third, the non-party deceased asserted that on June 30, 1989, he paid 100 million won to the non-party Hong○ on the deposit withdrawal amount of this case to the non-party Hong○ on November 30, 1989, 30 million won to the non-party Kim○ on December 8, 199, 150 million won, 7.5 billion won to the non-party ○○ on March 15, 1990, 1990. However, the non-party 6 through 8, 10-1 of evidence Nos. 6 through 8, 10-1 of evidence Nos. 15-1, 15-2, 19-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 19-1, and 00 of testimony amount to the non-party ○○ on the non-party ○ on the part of the non-party ○ on the deposit withdrawal amount of this case, and the following facts are not recognized otherwise.

(D) Although it is alleged that the amount stated in the separate sheet No. 4. Deposit No. 13 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was used as indicated in the same slip, the testimony of the witness Kim○○○○ is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, the plaintiffs' assertion that the non-party who established the account at several banks, etc. was able to keep the cash for a considerable period from the date of withdrawal to the date of its re-deposit or use, as well as evidence No. 13-1 to 16, No. 15-1,2, No. 16, No. 17-1 to 17, No. 17-2, No. 17, and No. 99, No. 17, No. 98, Dec. 1, 19, 207, which was objectively found to be non-party 1 and the testimony of the plaintiff Byung○○○○○○○○ Hospital's pre-sale.

"Therefore, in the disposition of this case, the defendant included 19,073,446 won in the taxable value of the inherited property on attached 3. The sale price of this case, which is clear in its use, 916,406,562 won in the sale price of this case, and 50,605,230 won in the amount of the withdrawal from the non-party company ○○ Bank ○○○○ Dong, which is revealed to be the old account of the non-party company, and 300,000,000 won in the amount of the deposit withdrawal of this case which is found to be offset and appropriated for the repayment of the non-party company's debt, and 1,267,011,792 won in the aggregate of the amount of the non-party company's debt 4.2 of attached Form 4.2 of the Act, it is unlawful to include each of them as stated in attached Form 5.5. When calculating the legitimate inheritance tax and defense tax amount for each of the plaintiffs's inheritance shares, it is clear."

"If so, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate only for the portion indicated in the "political party tax amount" column in the attached Table 1. The defendant's disposition of this case shall be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be accepted within the above recognition scope as reasonable, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.